S
Strom
Guest
…
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a couple of starters for thought. When you say "we're simply...meant to continue the lifecycle..." you assume in that statement an "oughtness" to moral and ethical imperatives. From that supposition you necessarily must regress to the query of exactly who makes such oughtness claims and why their philosophy of meaning and life has any ultimate objective bearing or substantive weight on answering the question. Long story made short, any opinion drawn from within the wells of merely human domains will be subjective and relativistic. For instance, who is to say that Hitler wasn't right? Why is any one person or group's theory of life to be more valued than his or Nietzsche theory of the Superman? The only logical way to escape such subjective notions of oughtness seems to me to be fulfilled in the objective nature of a true law-giver....of course rooted in a coherent worldview posited by the existence of God. Flowing from that consciousness is the notion that Twisted put forth, which is also distilled in Augustine's quote...I’ve never understood why we’re actually on this planet. My uncle, admittedly an unabashed agnostic, says the only point of life is reproduction; we’re simply, like all animal species, meant to continue the lifecycle. I’ve never had a Christian explain the point of life. Perhaps, in a nihilistic fashion, there really is none. If a person fails to reproduce, where does s/he fit into this picture?
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?If I’m correctly understanding you and Twisted, in simple terms, God created man in order to worship him. Is this correct?